Results from a structured interprofessional palliative care rehabilitation program in oncology.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
e20598 Background: Post-treatment patients with active cancer face considerable burden from the effects of both disease and treatment. The Palliative Rehabilitation Program was designed to ease those challenges and to improve the patient’s functioning. The current study evaluated the changes in function scores of patients with advanced cancer upon completion of the structured program and examined the medical predictors of program completion. Methods: Referrals for 173 patients who were finished anticancer therapy were received. One hundred and thirty six patients were eligible and enrolled in the eight-week interprofessional palliative rehabilitation program. Of those, 84 completed the program. Measures of physical, nutritional, social and psychological functioning were evaluated at entry and completion of the program. Results: Significant improvements were experienced in physical performance (P =0.000), nutrition (P =0.000), symptom severity (P=0.005 to P= 0.000), symptom interference in functioning (P =0.001 to P=0.000), and fatigue (P=0.001 to P=0.000). Reasons for not completing the program were: disease progression, geographical inaccessibility, being too well, dying, and personal/unknown reasons. A normal CRP level (<10mg/L; P=0.013) was a predictor of program completion. Conclusions: Patients living with advanced heterogeneous cancers who underwent an interprofessional palliative rehabilitation program experienced significant improvement in their functioning in many domains. Program completion can be predicted by normal CRP level.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".